Religious life won’t be the same after downturn

[WillParkinson]

Source: The Associated Press

Religious life won’t be the same after downturn
By The Associated Press
09.28.2009 4:41pm EDT

Organized religion was already in trouble before the fall of 2008. Denominations were stagnating or shrinking, and congregations across faith groups were fretting about their finances.

The Great Recession made things worse.

It’s further drained the financial resources of many congregations, seminaries and religious day schools. Some congregations have disappeared and schools have been closed. In areas hit hardest by the recession, worshippers have moved away to find jobs, leaving those who remain to minister to communities struggling with rising home foreclosures, unemployment and uncertainty.

Religion has a long history of drawing hope out of suffering, but there’s little good news emerging from the recession. Long after the economy improves, the changes made today will have a profound effect on how people practice their faith, where they turn for help in times of stress and how they pass their beliefs to their children.

Read more: http://www.365gay.com/news/religious-life-wont-be-the-same-after-downturn/

[Hawkeye-X]

1. I hope this will spell the death of one of the most obnoxious religious organization -

Focus on the Family...

(FOCUS ON YOUR OWN DAMN FAMILY - *mutter*)

[zelta gaisma]

15. yeah and

i agree but aren't all fundie wacko's annoying?

[Skittles]

2. GOOD

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

3. They all turned into political rallies

and The Word got lost in the shuffle.

[regnaD kciN]

4. "All"...? Boy, is your bigotry ever blinding you.

That's about as stupid a generalization as Manthrax Coulter's that "all liberals are anti-American." :eyes:

[atreides1]

11. You're Right

Not all became involved with politics, just the ones that lacked simple humility and became arrogant.

[intheflow]

88. Correction:

Not all became involved with RW politics. There are a lot of religious organizations working for social justice, you just don't hear about them because, as usual, the RW fundies are the only ones who get any press.

[DeSwiss]

5. Yippie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

K&R

[Seedersandleechers]

6. God always needs money.

Why can't God handle money? ( not an exact quote from George Carlin)

[zelta gaisma]

16. he should get a job and stop mooching off churches

[tsuki]

27. Bootstraps, he needs a pair of bootstraps. nt

[Pab Sungenis]

7. The problem is that a lot of the good denominations

are the ones suffering. The corporate megachurches always seem to do well while the small local parishes and synagogues who actually help people are the ones who take it in the ear.

[tomm2thumbs]

8. I believe in the single-PRAYer system

It's between you and God. 'The Church' can, much like Insurance Companies, get in between you and your God and takes a cut for doing it. And no, not every one of them.

Politically and financially, a number of religions often create situations like C-Street - all set up to make financial accommodation and play tax games for the wealthy. Enter Tammy Faye etc

As my mom used to say - if you end up on a deserted island - guess what... THAT'S your church.

[Sherman A1]

9. Agreed

There are a whole lot of good folks out there doing good things for others, but I believe there are a equal number or more out there just taking care of themselves and their little power base.

[midnight]

55. Your Mom is a wise woman.

[Hubert Flottz]

10. Maybe W will pray for 'em...

[Kablooie]

12. It needs to be turned way WAY down! It's become screechingly strident the last few years.

[elocs]

13. Another opportunity to apply the broad brush.

My guess is that more than a few DUers probably belong to churches or religious organizations which have a social conscious and do good works, helping people. These and more very good religious organizations are suffering from the recession along with the ones that DU likes to hate, but too often that hate extends to everything religious.

We don't like it as Liberals and Democrats when the broad brush is applied to us, so why do we feel justified in doing it to others? I thought we were smarter than that.

[mwb970]

19. Why then is there no backlash from "decent Christians"?

Where are the good ones? Are they speaking out against the bigoted, hateful element in their midst? If not, they're just as guilty.

When I was little "Christian" meant "decent and kind". Now it means "hateful and crazy". If I were a good Christian, I would be outraged. Are they?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

30. I've had this trite accusation SOOO many times

and if you think that the megachurch types give a shit about what liberal Christians think or that there are ANY organizational ties between them and us, then you don't know what you're talking about.

and everyone who says it thinks it's a zinger.

If you say such things, you're as uninformed as a Republican who calls Democrats "Marxists."

The fundies hate us. They teach their people to hate us for being heretics. (I've seen my own parish condemned on public access TV.) They do not listen to us. They are not even in the National Council of Churches with us because they think it's a Communist front (seriously).

We do speak out, but we're not "colorful" like Pat Robertson, so the media won't give us the time of day.

The fundies rally against gay rights? Front page coverage.

The mainstream Christians join with other religions to protest on the state capitol steps against the governor's budget cuts in medical aid for the poor? Page B3.

Oh, except that right-wing radio picks it up and tells their listeners that we're infected with Marxism.

May I remind you that the head of every mainstream Christian denomination (Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Eastern Orthodox, and more) signed a joint statement protesting the invasion of Iraq?

You didn't know that?

Of course not. No TV coverage and little tiny newspaper articles.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

33. Let me answer that one...

Because we're philosophically segregated.

I relocated to Milwaukee four years ago, and when I was looking for a congregation, I spent a lot of time searching for one that was liberal. Although the broader Lutheran Church is still wrestling with the subject of gay marriage, the pastor of the church I attend now was an "early adopter" on this issue, and will perform "ceremonies of blessing" if asked and, when the church finally allows it, will most certainly perform marriages.

The congregation where I attend has a variety of outreach ministries, including long-standing support of a free clinic in the inner city (the pastor's spouse is a physician who runs the place) and support for a host of other organizations that serve the poor and vulnerable in our society. Not every Lutheran congregation is this way, and so my search was worthwhile.

The point here is that I would probably not attend services if I had to do it with a pack of gibbering fundamentalists. So to your question as to why I don't speak out about hateful Christians "in my midst" its because they're not in my midst. I try to keep them as far from my midst as possible, truth be told.

The other reason why "good Christians" are loathe to speak out is that, as any good Christian knows, you're supposed to cast out the beam that is in thine own eye rather than the mote that is in thy brother's eye. I'm paraphrasing here, but the point is that you're supposed to be worried about yourself and not what other people are doing. Judge not, lest ye be judged. That sort of thing.

The Reglious Right, in their zeal to be involved with everybody else's life and in their desire to judge everybody around them, are acting exactly opposite of the teachings of the guy they perportedly worship. But you didn't get that from me!

[starroute]

41. These days, that's not a sufficient answer

If you haven't noticed, your religion is being pulled out from under you -- and pretty soon you could be in the positions of those last few remaining honorable Republicans who show up here occasionally wondering where their party went.

The extremists have captured the message. They paint themselves as more pious, more dedicated, more Real True Christians than anybody else -- and the mainstream denominations as some sort of fallen-away-to-secularism apostates. And the media have swallowed this. If they want a "Christian" representative to speak on any issue, they're not going to go to you. They're going to go to the fundamentalists and the megachurches.

There are also more concrete campaigns by the religious right to infiltrate and take over whole denominations. I'm not an expert on this -- I only know about it from occasional threads at DU -- but it's definitely going on. The Southern Baptists didn't used to be the way they are now -- Jimmy Carter left the Southern Baptist Convention in 2000 following a conservative takeover. And there's that split among Episcopalians with the extremists hooking up with that crazy anti-gay African archbishop.

If you had to hunt as hard as you say to find a liberal congregation even in Milwaukee, and if all outward signs are that you're standing on a shrinking island with the floodwaters rising around you, then congratulating yourself on how careful you are about beams and motes really becomes a form of false pride. As an outsider, I may not have the vocabulary right, but I'd suggest that it's time you started witnessing for what you believe.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

48. .

My religion is not being pulled anywhere, thank you very much. It's mine. Not theirs. Not yours. And how other people choose to practice their religion is up to them. Not me. And not you.

Regarding the splits among denominiations, I can speak directly to the potential schism among the Lutherans (some separatists met last week in Indiana) that has arisen over the issue of sexuality. The broader church earlier this year adopted what could be described as "home rule" for congregations with regard to gay clergy. Basically, if a congregation wants to call an openly gay pastor, they have the right to do that.

Conservatives, as you can imagine, are not exactly thrilled with that idea. But their hosility is not part of some nefarious fundamentalist take-over of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. The people were in the pews all along -- it really is a matter of the church moving in a direction (toward increased tolerance) they they don't like. I suspect many of them will leave, and that's a shame, but that's how they choose to practice their faith. It's their decision. Not mine. And not yours.

As to living on a shrinking island, I had my choice of my current congregation, and at least two others in the general area that were sufficiently liberal. The one I chose happened to be only two miles from my house and virtually next door to my kids' school.

For somebody who is a self-professed "outsider," on this subject, you certainly seem to have strong opinions about an area where you have no first-hand expertise.

[starroute]

65. I have strong opinions because I see liberals being outflanked everywhere

I remember 40 years ago when prominent liberal theologians were minor superstars. I remember when the Catholic Church was liberalizing on many fronts and liberation theology hadn't yet been stomped into the ground. I remember when fundamentalism was a quaint relic of the 19th century largely confined to the Deep South. I remember when the black churches were a powerful force for social change.

Something has changed across the board over the last 40 years, and the supplanting of socially engaged churches by pie-in-the-sky and gospel-of-wealth religion is only one part of it. But it's a large part, and one that's not going to change unless liberal Christians themselves start to speak out about the hijacking of their religion for ideological purposes.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

67. The wheel is turning....

Jim Wallis and others (check out the Sojourners website at sojo.net) are moving the discussion in another direction, and even some of the charismatic churches are accepting that what it means to be a Christian might -- just might -- have less to do with gay marriage than they previously thought.

American history is full of religious cycles. The fundamentalists have reached their highwater mark, and the tide is rolling back.

[LanternWaste]

73. In other words, forcing our brand of religion down someone else's throat...

"Are they speaking out against the bigoted, hateful element in their midst?"

In other words, 'forcing our brand of religion down someone else's throat...', regardless of the target, it's still six of one and half a dozen of the other...

[twitomy]

22. Because its about HATE..

Hate is not the province of a single political persuasion. Quite often those here who speak out against the Hate be it homophobia, racisim, etc, feel free to pracatice against other groups of which they dont approve.

[CatholicEdHead]

28. True, and those will see a resurgence over the next few years

as long as the downturn continues. Social Justice will see a resurgence, the current group of youth (high school, college) will move towards these churches/parishes as they are one of the largest volunteer generation we have had.

Anyone too tight to the GOP political chain will diminish until things turn around economically again and then the same games will be played.

[rd_kent]

47. When talking about religion as a whole....

one cannot HELP but to broadbrush it. Sure, there are exceptions to that broadbrush, but one cannot deny, that religion, taken as a whole, is corrupt and the root cause of all that is wrong in the world.

If there was EVER a group that deserved the broadbrush, this it it.

[liberal N proud]

14. After the last 8 years, I can't say they didn't bring it on themselves

[zelta gaisma]

17. If Jesus REALLY saved he wouldn't be broke$$$$

[Mr. Sparkle]

18. Talk about your small mercies. n/t

[Hubert Flottz]

20. Those preachers need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps

and get a real job.

[pattmarty]

21. Fucking great news!!!! All religion is "stories" and superstiton.............

if we can "shrink" organized religions and finally make people understand really what they are, the world will definitely be a better place for it.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

25. ...and soup kitchens and free clinics and after-school programs

Baby. Meet Bathwater.

[pattmarty]

31. I think you're confusing "good works" with religion. Baby, bathwater..............

...............my ass. Sure, there are a "few" (very few) "religions" that really try to help people. These are usually poor local churches operating independently on their own and with usually little funding and in poor neighborhoods by the poor themselves. The majority of "free clinics and soup kitchens" as you put it, are run by secular groups. Oh, and you should have added in your broadly incorrect statement, is ALL the proselytizing that goes on with the religious "organizations".

[Lydia Leftcoast]

36. You're the one who is stereotyping

Let's see, there's a drop-in center for the homeless and sponsorship of refugees (with no proselytizing--both my most recent parishes have sponsored Muslim refugees) and clothing for poor people going on job interviews and mentoring for people who are trying to get off welfare and emergency no-interest loans for the financially desperate and apartments for former street youth and Habitat for Humanity teams and volunteers for disaster relief and goodwill trips to Cuba and performing same-sex weddings (even though they have no legal standing in Minnesota) and sponsoring secular Boy Scout and Girl Scout troops for Somali children (they meet offsite and have no religious element, in deference to the parents' preferences--the object is to prevent Islamic militancy by helping the kids feel a part of American society) and an advocacy group for urban Native Americans and a support group for the unemployed.

That's just my parish. All in one group of people. And no, we aren't a parish made up of poor people. We're a downtown parish with a huge range of incomes.

How many secular organizations do all those things--and provide spiritual and intellectual enrichment, sponsorship of the arts, and a "family" feeling that transcends the usual boundaries of race, class, sexual orientation, and even political orientation (although the majority of members are liberal to leftist and vote Democratic overwhelmingly)?

But if you have your head made up about religion, if you're working out your childhood issues with a fundamentalist or Mormon or hardcore Catholic upbringing, you don't want to know that.

[pattmarty]

51. Don't try to analyze me. Religion has done more bad than good..........

..........READ your history. Religion IS a collection of "stories" and finally IT IS superstition. I don't know that many organizations but you have Salvation Army and others that have been doing this kind of work for years and years. I believed when I grew up in the 50's and 60's that the Scopes trial had put an end to that kind of crap. But, evidently not. I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM with you and your beliefs IF YOU KEEP THEM TO YOURSELF. Religion should be like sex, private. Fucking end of story!!!!!!!!!!

[twitomy]

54. I think atheism has doen more good than bad..

Stalin,Pol Pot,Castro,Mao....How many millions?

[pattmarty]

57. Did I say I was an atheist??????? These people were bad people, SO WAS BUSH!!!!!

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

63. You've inadvertently found the answer....

It's not that people are believers or atheists. It's just that some people are truly despicable. Would Jerry Falwell have been any less of a repulsive cretin had he not been a Baptist? Would Ted Bundy been any less of a monster if we were a Methodist?

Condemning people based on their loose association with another person is one of the hallmarks of ignorance. Whether it's Sarah Palin saying that Obama is "palling around" with terrorists or people on this board condemning all Christianity on the basis of the actions of a few others, it makes no difference. It's wrong.

[pattmarty]

69. What I found fucking jesus???? You "converted" me??? I'll fucking..........

.............say it again loud and fucking clear: I CAN GIVE A SHIT WHAT YOU BELIEVE. BUT....KEEP RELIGION LIKE SEX, PRIVATE!!!!!!!!!!!!

It really pisses me off when I am sitting in my house doing whatever when a couple of "fanatics" come to my door and try to convert me on the spot. AND, it MORE than pisses me off to see these "Evangelists" telling all these people without a fucking pot to piss in to "send money" for fucking jesus. So I don't want to hear "shit" about finally getting the point. The "point" is there good AND bad people in the world. Religion doesn't have a god damn thing to do with that or not. BUT, it has been used quite a bit through history to do bad things in the name of good.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

71. The point....

If you'll calm down for just a minute.

You wrote: The "point" is there good AND bad people in the world. Religion doesn't have a god damn thing to do with that or not.

And this is me agreeing with that statement. Having religion doesn't make you an inherently better or worse person. The point I'm making is that since religion doesn't make you any better or worse, it's wrong to condemn religion as the root cause.

And if it's wrong to lay the blame on regligion itself, it's equally wrong to blame other people on the basis of their association with any particular denomination. Some Baptists are Jerry Falwell and others are Jimmy Carter. Being a Baptist has nothing to do with the type of person they are.

[pattmarty]

74. Look, can we agree to disagree? I consider myself an "agnostic"..................

I was "brought up" Catholic by a father that did not know either of his parents and was in a Catholic orphanage from the time he was 3 yo. He wasn't a "hard ass" but he believed that his children should be bought up with a religious background (as did MOST parents in the 50's). I went to a catholic school from 1-8th grade and had to fight with my father tooth and nail to NOT be sent to an all boys HS. I learned ENOUGH about religion during those 8 yrs to fuck me up for MORE than a lifetime (and no, I wasn't "molested"). I guess what I am trying to say here is that I did not have a "bad" experience with religion, but saw at an early age that it was superstition and "stories", very often hypocritically so. I had 5 children ALL baptized in the church as I used to say sarcastically, "just in case". I have over the years become gradually agnostic. I get sometimes violent over discussions about "organized" religions. Let me close this up here by an example: Most laws of countries in the world have a so called "moral backing". What I mean is that most religions have certain golden rules, ten commandments or whatever that followers MUST follow. Again for instance, murder all would agree is wrong and that is a legal and church law. Now look at sex. Having sex outside of marriage in most religions is a "sin", as is prostitution. Now, prostitution is illegal (in most areas), but being unfaithful is not. I really don't want to knock what you believe in, but if you look at all the religions they are illogical at the least, and crazy in the extremes. I'll shut the fuck up with you don't need religion to do good and in contrast you can do bad in the name of religion/god. Maybe that will clear up somewhat my view on ORGANIZED religion.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

82. Mainstream denominations don't send people door to door, either

:shrug:

[pattmarty]

128. "Mainstream", c'mon..........

[Lydia Leftcoast]

81. Uh, the Salvation Army IS a religious group (officially a denomination)

and most mainstream Christian denominations (including the Catholics) DO accept evolution and read the Bible allegorically.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

38. You have no clue as to what you're saying.

Read my other post upthread. I live in a very affluent suburb, and virtually ALL of our outreach is in the inner city and poor neighborhoods.

The majority of free clinics and soup kitches are run by secular groups? Really? You sure about that? Here's a list of soup kitchens in the South Bronx. See any common threads?

Bread Basket at Woodycrest United Methodist Church
Garden of Prayer
Give them To Eat (Bronx Spanish Evangelical Church)
Grand Concourse Community Services
Greater Universal Baptist Church
St. Benedict The Moor Center
St. Ann’s Church of Morrisania
St. Margaret’s Episcopal Church
Salvation Army Bronx Citadel
United Bronx Parents

[twitomy]

44. Yeah, how many charities are run by

the Atheists? Cant think of one...

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

46. Not entirely fair to atheists....

Relgious groups have the benefit of a standing organization to assist in gathering volunteers, etc. I've done a lot of community work side-by-side with people who I know to be atheist and agnostic.

They're just good neighbors.

[rd_kent]

50. And your point?

Atheists dont have "atheist" groups that do charitable work. There are, however, many atheists that belong to and work with secular groups that do good works. You argument is a strawman and has been officially knocked down.

[pattmarty]

53. I don't fucking know, I am not an atheist.

[onager]

142. No atheist charities? Here's a list...

...of secular/atheist charitable organizations:

http://techskeptic.blogspot.com/2007/12/atheist-charities.html

Everything from Doctors Without Borders to the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers.

It is one of the Christian delusions that Christianity brought charity into the world. It did no such thing.

There were plenty of agencies for taking care of the poor and helpless long before Christianity was heard of, and even before Judaism.

Both Christianity and Judaism have converted charity into a sort of pious racket. The alms-giver, in return for a trifling expenditure on this earth, will be rewarded with an infinity of bliss post-mortem. This purely selfish note is struck with great clarity by Judaism, and only less clearly by Christianity. It appears also in the other religions of the East.

Thus religion has not really promoted charity, but debased it.--H.L. Mencken

[twitomy]

42. Your right, those Catholic Hospitals dont do a damn bit of

good for the poor and indigant, they ought to just shut them down. :sarcasm:

My wife perfers working for the Catholic Hositals,(who invented hospitals) Says everyone gets the same good care regardless of ability to pay.

[pattmarty]

75. Okay. St Joseph hospital, Elgin Il. Don't give me that bullshit...............

.............about fucking "catholic" hospitals. Better come up with a better one than that, pal.

[twitomy]

78. Yep your right,

One bad experience means we should shut down all Catholic hospitals. They do zero good. The poor people who use them should just go in a corner and die. It better that way because afterall, religion and their institutions are no good. Yes sireee, you got me...

[pattmarty]

96. Look, did I say ALL???????????? No I did not. You insinuated.............

.............that ALL catholic hospitals do all this good work. AND, I say bullshit! There are a lot of "for profit" catholic hospitals too. Just in cast you don't know, for profit hospitals are FOR FUCKING PROFIT, not necessarily to help the poor. You're fucking dreaming.

[twitomy]

106. There is a difference between "non-profit" and "not-for-profit"

Non profits have to show a zero balance at the end of the fiscal year.

Of course Catholic Hospitals have to be in the black at the end of the year, otherwise they wouldnt survive in the long term. However, as opposed to for-profit institutions, the primary goal of these organizations is to provide care, not to increase profit margins and provide dividends.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

118. There is no such thing as a "for-profit" Catholic hospital

Let's be clear on this. I work for a non-profit (non-Catholic) hospital, and not one of our sister institutions turns a "profit" at the end of the year. They may have a positive balance sheet, but these funds are plowed back into the organization, purchasing medical equipment or expanding our facilities to serve more patients.

Even when a non-profit entity owns a for-profit subsidiary (as my organization does), those profits are also put back into the operations of the system and do not inure to the benefit of any individual or group. The IRS is pretty persnickity on that subject.

You may have a legitimate beef with the quality of care that you received (and I'm not talking about Catholic hospitals in general - just that you may have had a poor experience), but that doesn't change the basic nature of Catholic hospitals or any other non-profit entity.

[pattmarty]

126. BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!! St Joseph hospital in Elgin Il is one and I am sure there are others.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

129. Sorry. You're wrong.

Here's the IRS Form 990 (the form filed by non-profit entities) from Provena Hospitals. Provena Health System is the operator of Provena St. Joseph Hospital. Contributions to the hospital are tax deductible, as they are a 501(c)(3) charitable organization.

http://www.provena.org/documents/finance/ProvenaHosp_2007_990.pdf

[pattmarty]

131. No, I'm not. Get admitted to that hospital and TELL everyone here..........

................that hospital is a "non-profit" hospital on ITS OWN? AND, more importantly Provena is a fucking CORPORATION how ever the fuck it is set up. It's for fucking profit.


COME ON, HEALTHCARE AT THIS STAGE SHOULD BE COMPLETELY NOT FOR PROFIT VENTURE.


Then we wouldn't need "charity" or "religious" organizations would we?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

146. I don't know what to say to you...

I just provided you with their tax return, for crying out loud. Provena Health System is a non-profit organization. They are a corporation, to be sure, but they are a NON-PROFIT CORPORATION. They are a registered 501(c)(3) charitable organization.

I don't know how to state it any more plainly.

[twitomy]

133. Watch it now!

Some people get real hot when facts get in the way of your opinion. Jeff, you work for a Catholic Hospital!? Cool! So does my Wife and Brother. As I said before, my Wife prefers the Catholic Hospital
as profit isnt the motivation and it is shown in the better care they give.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

145. I don't work for a Catholic system....

It's a non-profit, but it has deep roots in the faith community (we're quite ecumenical, actually). One of our facilities a came about through the merger of a Jewish and a Lutheran hospital, and another of our facilities is a former Methodist facility. But we operate (no pun intended) under same guidance as our Catholic colleagues.

[twitomy]

148. Excellent!

Best wishes and prayers for continued sucess!

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

79. Dude. Really.

There are more than 600 Catholic hospitals in the United States that admitted more than 5 million patients and conducted 92 million outpatient visits. I couldn't even guess at how much charity care they provide in the course of a single year, but I'm betting that it's somewhere approaching $1 billion.

You're seriously barking up the wrong tree.

[pattmarty]

97. Provide proof or links, "dude".

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

119. Annual Report of the Catholic Health Association of the U.S.

Link

[pattmarty]

127. Are those figures from the University of I don't remember???................

..............Look, I'm done arguing with a "person of faith". THERE ARE FOR PROFIT Catholic hospitals. Do Catholic hospitals provide "public" care, sure in some cases, just like most OTHER hospitals. I will agree that "religions" in SOME cases (very few) do good without themselves getting a "payback" (either in monetary terms or convert terms). My opinion, is MOST of the "help" is in rhetoric for propaganda purposes. I'll tell ya, when I was still a "christian" I DID NOT see a lot of it. In case you are wondering if I was a parishioner of a "wealthy" church, no, I was bought up lower middle class. AND, I do know about the "catholics", I am not willing now to go into exactly what/how I know, but it has nothing to do with the "latest" church scandals. I really, really don't want to beat on you for your beliefs, but you are so insistent like so many others with these superstitious beliefs that I REALLY, REALLY can't help myself. Now, did you want to discuss your sex life at this time???? You do have first amendment rights, so go right ahead, we're all listening..........

[darkstar3]

90. Doctors at Catholic hospitals

who provide certain basic medical services to women can be excommunicated for their trouble. And I'm NOT just talking about surgical abortion. I'm talking about giving birth control, morning after pills, or counseling that in any way involves the 'termination of life,' whether that be for a child or for a suffering elderly family member.

Further, I have no need to be proselytized to while I am in great physical and/or emotional pain. And don't fucking say that doesn't happen either, 'cause I've got 2 hospitals 10 minutes from my house that do it.

In short, Catholic hospitals may do some good. Secular hospitals, unbound by such ridiculous restrictions on treatment, would do better.

[pattmarty]

98. Amen!!! I am beginning to think ALL religious types are prejudiced........

.............It must be the "faith" thing. You want to believe, so it must be true.

[onager]

143. Catholics invented hospitals? Boolsheet!

Even Wikipedia knows better...

The Sinhalese (Sri Lankans) are perhaps responsible for introducing the concept of dedicated hospitals to the world.

According to the Mahavamsa, the ancient chronicle of Sinhalese royalty written in the 6th century A.D., King Pandukabhaya (4th century BC) had lying-in-homes and hospitals (Sivikasotthi-Sala) built in various parts of the country. This is the earliest documentary evidence we have of institutions specifically dedicated to the care of the sick anywhere in the world...

The Romans created valetudinaria for the care of sick slaves, gladiators and soldiers around 100 BC, and many were identified by later archeology...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hospital#History

[twitomy]

43. Salvation Army does nothing either,..

Let them pound sand too....

[darkstar3]

39. All contingent on being constantly 'ministered to'.

'Here's your soup, and your Chick Tract.'
(Yes, in the vast majority of cases, that's hyperbole, but I've seen it so don't just completely discount it.)

SOME faith-based charities do what they do silently because they truly wish to help the poor. "As you have done to the least of these" is usually located somewhere in their charter documents or mission statement. I have respect for these organizations, because they have managed to keep their proselytizing out of their good works.

But the majority of faith-based charities, especially those that do overseas work, deliver a heaping helping of Bible along with their food. Turning a soup dinner for the homeless into a sermon is in incredibly bad taste. It's opportunistic at best. These people need to remember that when their hero fed the masses, he did it simply because they were hungry, and not because he had some ulterior motive.

So, as to your analogy, I think it is ill-applied here.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

45. Repeating: You have no clue as to what you're saying

I've cooked meals at homeless shelters. I've tutored kids. I've handed out clothes. I've cleaned trash from the street and done fix-up jobs at the homes of shut-ins.

Never ONCE in my life have I handed out any religious material of any kind. And among my friends from other denominations who have done the same in their communities, they've never swapped a sermon for services rendered, either.

You're making a gross and largely unsubstantiated generalization.

[angryfirelord]

52. Thank you

It's a shame that the evangelical atheists try to use grandstanding on here to denounce charitable organizations when they're needed more than ever. Our church is lucky to get by on the source of income it has and there have been those precarious months where the budget wasn't meeting expenses. When we do charitable work, it's targeted at those who are in need. No bible, no ten commandments, just our way of trying to give back to the community.

[twitomy]

56. And I would bet the religious charitable organizations

Do a hell of (no pun intended) lot better in return on the dollar donated than charity dispensed by the State. These people do it out of their heart, unlike the bureacrats, many of whom are in it for the pension.

[pattmarty]

60. You have no fucking idea what you're talking about. There good people.............

............that are "communist" and there bad people that consider themselves "good christians". Just like you may be a liberal and a murderer.

RELIGION SHOULD BE PRIVATE, JUST LIKE SEX. KEEP IT TO YOURSELVES, AND I (and probably a lot more "non-believers") don't have a problem with it.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

64. Why should we do that...

Religion is, after all, just a form of philsophy. It's like saying that we should never discuss existentialism or metaphysics.

Once you start deciding which ideas should (and should not) be discussed and debated openly, you're sliding down that slippery slope to ignorance.

[twitomy]

68. So does KEEPING RELIGION TO YOURSELF

mean you cant do charitable work in the name of the religious beleifs?

Your statement reminds me of the statement made against Gays: "Keep it to yourselves, and I dont have a problem with it" Same bigotry.

[pattmarty]

72. Ok. I'm a homophobic bigot too. C'mon, if you're bringing up this............

...........weak, fucked up argument, you ALREADY knew what I meant.

[twitomy]

76. Didnt say you were,

just saying your using the same line of intolerance...

[darkstar3]

86. 'evangelical atheists'

Oh, yeah, another failure in the use of the word evangelical.

:eyes:

Before you start throwing around words like 'evangelical' or 'fundamentalist', it might help you to know their proper definitions.

Here's a couple good ones for you.
Evangelical: Adjective meaning "pertaining to the gospels"; derived from the Greek word euangelion, "good news".
Fundamentism: The interpretation of every word in the sacred texts as literal truth.

Try again.

[trotsky]

100. Oh they know damn well it's a ridiculous and meaningless phrase.

They use it to insult and demean, that's all.

[darkstar3]

101. I know.

I just couldn't resist calling him on it.

How ya been, trotsky? :hi:

[darkstar3]

80. Good for you.

But my generalization is NOT unsubstantiated. From personal experience (just like yours) and things I've read about the Salvation Army's work in Central America I know that many 'charitable works' are merely cover for the true work of saving souls.

So again, good for you, but you won't convince me that people like you are the majority of faith-based charities.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

83. It's good to know you have faith...

Because faith is the belief in things unseen. Since you're believing in things you can't possibly prove, then you're a card-carrying member of the Faith Community.

See you on Sunday.

[darkstar3]

84. Ah, snarky insults

and ignoring the substance of my post. The last defense of the stubborn but wrong.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

85. I'm just pulling your leg....

You know. Humor?

[darkstar3]

87. It wasn't funny.

In fact, I've never heard a joke about religion or the lack thereof that WAS funny. Not even in Short Circuit.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

91. Sounds like a personal problem....

Can't help you there.

[darkstar3]

93. On second glance, i don't even think it was a joke.

So remember, adding 'just kidding' after saying something that comes out insulting doesn't make it funny or acceptable.

And you never did answer my point.

[rd_kent]

49. While those ARE good things that come from religious organizations....

they PALE in comparison to the harm they inflict on the world. Sure, there are some good groups out there doing good works, but all of that is overshadowed by the corruption and hypocrisy that religion as a whole, casts upon itself and everyone else.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

58. For example?

I'm trying to understand the specific harm done by religion that overshadows the positive role it plays in assisting the poor.

[rd_kent]

61. Really? You need it spelled out?

Ok, heres a short list....

Hate, intolerance, hypocrisy, murder, war.......need I go on?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

66. Yes. Until you come up with one example...

I'm pretty sure that religion didn't invent hatred and intolerance, and I'm positively sure they're not the sole proprietors in that regard.

What you're talking about here is human nature. The only way to eradicate these things is to end the species.

[twitomy]

70. Yes exactly,,

Im trying to think of one harmful thing Jesus preached...cant think of any.
But I can think of many things Christian religious groups have done that were inconsistant with the teachings they espouse. Thats due to imperfect people, not the religion. Every institution has its imperfections, they key is to recognize and overcome them.

[darkstar3]

89. Please...

The mistakes made by the 'Holy Mother Church' alone would equate to millions of deaths and eons of suffering. You want examples? How about two?

The Catholic Church of South Africa's stance on Apartheid.
The Catholic doctrine of non-involvement in the holocaust.

You wanna reach back beyond the 20th century? 'Cause I got more, and that's just for the Catholics.

Here's one that involves many denominations: Prop 8.

Or how about trying to legislate away a woman's right to choose?

One example? ONE FUCKING EXAMPLE? If you couldn't see any of this for yourself plus a whole lot more than you have blinders on to the world.

And as for your quote 'I'm pretty sure that religion didn't invent hatred and intolerance, and I'm positively sure they're not the sole proprietors in that regard.'
You're right. It took epochs of human nature to create hatred and intolerance, but it took religion to perfect them and mainline them into societal structures. Religion is, after all, an exclusive group activity which creates a divide between those like you and those not, and this divide is the true root of intolerance.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

92. Oh dear...

You're blaming apartheid on religion? Desmond Tutu would be devasted to know that he's culpable.

And regarding the Holocaust, there were plenty of people of faith who defied Hitler (Dietrich Bonhoffer springs to mind) and who paid for it with their lives.

Many denominations, including the Unitarians, oppose Proposition 8.

Many people of faith, including this one, are opposed to restrictions on abortion.

You're cherry picking the worst examples of Christianty, taking those who failed to live up to their moral obligations and acting as though the rest of the faith community never existed. Martin Luther King Jr. used his faith to change the world. So did Ghandi. If you're hell-bent (pun intended) on finding fault in anything, you're likely to be successful. At the end of the day, if that's what gives you strength and purpose, then I suppose that's what's best for you.

[darkstar3]

94. And you're engaging in a fallacy yourself

It's called 'The No True Scotsman' fallacy.

Remember, you asked for examples and I gave you several. Just because you don't like those people or their actions doesn't give you the right to say they aren't Christian. By their definition, YOU are not Christian. So who is right, and who is damned?

You're all Christians. You're a Christian, and so is Fred Phelps. If I, as an atheist, have to put up with Christopher Fucking Hitchens (and that IS his full name) then you, as a Christian, have to put up with Fred, Jerry, Pat, and all the rest.

So tell me another one about how religion, especially Christianity, has done no harm.

If you wish to claim the good that Christians and other religions have done, you must also accept the bad, and at least attempt to understand why those of us on the other side of the fence are wary of your fellow followers.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

95. .

The "No True Scotsman" fallacy is a way of denying the contrary evidence that (almost always) arises from a universal claim. I'm not denying that horrible people have done horrible things in the name of their religion.

The universal claim here (in this thread) is that religion is a malevolent force in the world and has done more harm than good. My point is that for every negative example you can throw out, I can cite a positive example.

And no. I don't have to accept the evil that has been done by misguided people claiming to represent the will of God. Just as, as a conservationist, I don't have to accept responsibility for the bad acts of PETA and the Environmental Liberation Front. If your older brother goes out and robs a liquor store, do you have to do jail time with him? If my best friend from high school cheats on his wife, am I morally responsible? If not, then how in heaven's name can I be accountable for the actions taken by people I've never met, especially when they occurred a century ago on the other side of the planet?

[darkstar3]

102. I suspect that would be a LONG argument.

And I also suspect that you would lose.

I've got 6,000 years of recorded history wherein Jews, Christians, and Muslims make war amongst themselves and each other, commit genocide against native peoples, oppress women, stone children, enslave other peoples, suppress free thought and scientific inquiry, and torture those who don't agree with them. And they did it all in the name of their religion, many times while carrying the symbol of their chosen God.

In all, estimates of people who died specifically because of religion range upward of 100 MILLION. And that doesn't even get into the pain and suffering inflicted on those who survived long enough to die of natural causes.

I don't think that you can come up with enough positive examples to match all of that death and suffering, and frankly, your positive examples wouldn't outweigh this damage anyway.

If Ted Bundy had done his killing only on the weekends, and volunteered every weekday at a soup kitchen, would that make him a better man?
If John Wayne Gacy had given every dime he could and then some to a battered women's shelter, would that have made any difference in how we should have treated him when we found his kids in the yard?
Of course not. Some acts, like murder, are so heinous that they cannot be 'offset' by positive actions. And if you think they can, then you're talking about Karmic debt, and last I checked you weren't a Hindu.

As for your entire last paragraph, that's a double standard. We tell moderate and liberal Muslims to stand up and denounce the terrorists, and we encourage them to take their religion back from the crazies. At the same time, we tell them that if they take no action, that they are just as responsible, because silence = acceptance. If we can't say the same thing to Christians, how can we say it to Muslims?

As for your specific analogies, each one of them has many answers regarding moral responsibility. You would be morally responsible for your older brother's thievery if you could have stopped it or if you encouraged it. You would be morally responsible for your best friend cheating on his wife if you knew about it and said nothing. But since what you're really upset about is guilt by association, it's the PETA example that makes the most sense here.

I, too, am a conservationist/environmentalist, and PETA pisses me off. Don't get me wrong, they do a lot of good work, but every time I turn around PETA is in the news for trying to pull some ill-conceived publicity stunt that ends up making all of us look bad. The problem is that those publicity stunts have now created an image in the public mind: environmentalist = crazy blood throwing PETA loon.

This gave me two choices. I could find a way to fight PETA and take the label 'environmentalist' back for the good guys, or I could find a new way to identify myself so that people didn't think I was bugfuck crazy. I chose the latter, since it was easier, and when people ask me about my views on the environment, I simply say 'I'd just like to survive.' That gets them to ask what I mean, so I can say 'If we don't do something to stop the track we're on, this won't be our planet for much longer.' This way, I can still get my moderate point across, and they never have that knee-jerk reaction to hearing the word 'environmentalist.'

As far as I can see it, you also have two choices.
1. Band together with your liberal friends to de-fund, dethrone, and dehumanize Fred, John, Pat, and the rest, thereby taking your religion back from the crazies.
2. Find a new way to identify yourselves so the rest of the world can't associate you with their ilk.
Because if you won't do either, and you continue to refer to yourselves as Christians, then you wrap yourselves voluntarily with the baggage that label brings, and you give credence to the psychopaths because they can claim you as a follower.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

103. Here's the thing....

The world's a complicated place. "This gave me two choices," you write. Weak-minded people always think of the world as offering two (or fewer) choices. These people always believe that you're either with us or you support the terrorists and that God is on our side and opposed to the infidels. Demonization of others is easier when you cling to the unshakeable belief that the others are evil incarnate. If that's all you're capable of understanding, then that's your world. And you're welcome to it.

All of those horrible things that you claim were caused by religion? The genocide, the slavery, the intolerance? Those weren't caused by religion. They were caused by people. And if there were no God in the universe, those atrocities would have occurred just the same because people can be cruel, rapacious, and downright stupid. That, my friend, is what's known as human nature. No religion, or the lack of religion, can claim ownership to that. Religion hasn't had much luck in changing the laws of human nature over the past few millenia, but atheism hasn't had much success either.

Here's one more thing. I don't answer to you. I don't have to "band with my fellow liberals" any more than I have to "find a new way to identify myself". If you're too thick to see beyond the end of your nose, if you can't tell the difference between a progressive and a conservative, if you're too slow-witted to think for yourself rather than simply react to the labels that other people use, then why in heaven's name would I care what you think? What possible consequence would your condemnation mean to me?

[darkstar3]

104. You found a lot of ways to call me stupid in that post.

Understand something from the post you replied to. I'M not one of the people who reduces the world to two diametric opposites. I'm saying that I'm sick of dealing with the people who do and I found a way to avoid their bullshit. If you, like me, are sick of dealing with people who paint you as something you're not simply because you associate with a particular group, then do something about it or kwitcherbitchin.

To put it another way, step UP, or step OFF.

'why in heaven's name would I care what you think?'
Then :wtf: are you doing arguing with me? Why are you even here? If you don't give a damn what I think, or what anyone else thinks, why even engage in debate? Something tells me that normally you do care, but I've just pissed you off because I've made valid points you don't want to accept.

And remember, in that whole long post where I laid out my case, I never ONCE called you stupid, short-sighted, or slow-witted. Why must YOU resort to ad-hom?

Sometimes when your opponents don't understand you, it means that THEY are ignorant. Sometimes, it means that YOU are. Wisdom is found in figuring out which of those is the case.

ETA: 100 MILLION people killed by religious adherents in the name of their chosen god(s). It's a HUGE leap to say that they would STILL have died violently in a world without religion. How do you come to that conclusion?

You CAN'T lay all the crimes of religion at the feet of 'human nature'. Religion stoked the sentiment, fanned the discord, and made many of those crimes not only possible, but acceptable to the masses.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

105. .

You say you're not one of those people. Yet you used that exact phrase not once, but twice, in the previous post. You tell me that you're left with two choices, and then you tell me that I'm left with two choices, but now you tell me you're not one of those people. You'll forgive me if I draw conclusions based on your actual statements, and not the mea culpa that you post when I call you on it.

Now let's get to the idiotic belief that 100 million people have died because of religion. And just in case you're counting, that's FOUR times that I've insulted your intelligence. 100 Million, eh? Let's review...

First World War (not caused by relgion, by any stretch): 15 million dead
Russian Revolution (communists = atheists): 9 million dead
World War II (again, not caused by religion): 55 million dead
Stalin (communist = atheist): 20 million dead
Korean War (not caused by religion) 2.5 million dead
Mao Tse-Tung (see above): 40 million dead
North Korea (see above): 2.5 million dead
Viet Nam (see above) 3.5 million dead
Pol Pot (see above) 1.65 million dead
Rwanda/Burundo (tribal conflict) 1.35 million dead

Dude, that's 150 million people dead and I didn't even leave the 20th century. And it doesn't include a host of other conflicts like the Invasion of Iraq, which was denounced by nearly every mainstream religious denominiation in the country. And if you think that religion was the cause of the Iraq Invasion and not the price of a barrel of oil, then you're a dope (make that six times). And add another 1,000,000 military and civilian fatalities.

That's what cruel, rapacious and downright stupid human beings are capable of in just 100 years.

You know those right-wing nutjobs who claim that "every war in American history was started by a Democratic president" (as if Woodrow Wilson started World War I and as if...um...Abraham Lincoln was a Democrat?) It's every bit as moronic as trying to quantify the number of people killed "because of religion" or trying to blame religion as the sole cause of every conflict that ever broke out anywhere in the world.

What are we up to, now, seven?

As to why I bother arguing with you, it's not because I think you're going to change your mind. You clearly have a hostility toward religion that's not going to go away because of anything I said. But there is a chance that other, more reasonable, people might come across this thread and maybe it will give them some food for thought. Maybe this dialogue will raise a few questions that won't go away. So in the end, you've helped me achieve my purpose by being a useful idiot.

Make that eight.

[darkstar3]

108. Your arguments are laughable

You're just like the Pope when he says that other religions bugger little boys too. It's not about the fact that other people do it, it's about the fact that Christians do it and then say that they don't.

In other words, stating that over 150 million people have died as a result of wars NOT caused by religion does nothing whatsoever to erase or combat my original argument of 100 million killed BY religion. And while you may think it idiotic to look for the harm that religions have done over the centuries, that doesn't mean we should ignore history.

'trying to blame religion as the sole cause of every conflict that ever broke out anywhere in the world.'

Did I ever do that? Let's trace back...
First, you said 'I'm trying to understand the specific harm done by religion that overshadows the positive role it plays in assisting the poor.'
Then, when rd_kent couldn't answer your question, I stepped in with specific examples.
You then dodged those examples and accused me of cherry picking.
And since then we've gone back and forth, with you getting increasingly nasty.

At this point, I am forced to call into question either your reading comprehension or your desire for honest discussion. Either you don't understand what I've posted, or you are deliberately ignoring it in an attempt to still seem right.

And if you think for one second that you will be vindicated when other readers view this thread, then you're no different from Bush when he says that history will judge him kindly and find that he was right.

Oh, look, now I've called you stupid twice AND equated you to two right-wing douchebags. I guess turnabout is fair play.

Again, you asked a question, and I gave you an honest and historically verifiable answer. Sometimes the truth hurts. If you don't want to hear it, don't ask the question.

[twitomy]

111. Let me rephrase that...

In other words, stating that over 150 million people have died as a result of wars NOT caused by ATHIESTS does nothing whatsoever to erase or combat my original argument of 100 million killed BY ATHIESTS.

Pot, meet kettle.

[darkstar3]

113. ?

I've read your post four times, and I still don't know if you had a point, or what it could possibly have been. But it did make my eyes go :crazy:

[twitomy]

114. Ok let me explain

Your condeming religion for the millions murdered, yet those who rail against religion also murder millions, yet no condemnation from you on them.

[darkstar3]

117. And those who rail against religion...

do they murder in the name of atheism? Of course not.

[twitomy]

120. Yes they do...

They murdered to create "utopia", defined as not having religion.

[darkstar3]

123. Again, source. n/t

[twitomy]

107. Again, I fail to see where Jesus preached murder.

False application of Religious teaching does not condemn religion any more than a incompetent doctor
condemns medicine. Thats not to say there are bogus religions, (subject to ones opinion of course)

"100 MILLION people killed by religious adherents in the name of their chosen god(s). It's a HUGE leap to say that they would STILL have died violently in a world without religion. How do you come to that conclusion?"

Gee I dunnno, Stalin and Mao killed about that many in the name of atheism/secular humanism...

You could also add Hitler to the list as well, he thought religion was "the cultivation of human failure"

So Take the pole out of your own eye...

[darkstar3]

109. 'No True Scotsman' makes another appearance.

And as for your favorite list of dictators, that has been debunked time and again, here on DU, elsewhere on the internet, and in many books. But since you want to play...

Tell me, how was anything Stalin or Mao did 'in the name of atheism'?

PS: Atheism and Secular Humanism are two entirely different things.

[twitomy]

110. They did it in the name of communism

One of whose tenants is that there is no god, that religion is the "opiate of the masses".
So in the name of this disbelief they persecuted those of faith.

Oh, so Stalin and Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler were not mass murderers? Wow talk about beliefs not based on facts!

You cant be both a person of faith and a secular humanist, as secular humanism rejects faith, as do atheists. Two peas in a pod.

[darkstar3]

112. Source, please.

1. Source your claim that a tenant of communism is 'that there is no god.'
2. Where did I say these men were not mass murderers?

[twitomy]

115. Communism rejects Religion

as and murdered to enforce that rejection. Its kinda common knowledge....

[darkstar3]

116. If it's so common, source it. n/t

[twitomy]

121. Marx: Communist Manifesto

You can also try this neat little tool called "google"

[darkstar3]

122. You made the claim, here and above

It's your responsibility to back it up. No source, no credibility.

[twitomy]

124. What part of the "Communist Manifesto" dont you understand?

Its the "Bible" for communists. It is opposed to religion. The adherants of it
murdered to create their religion free utopia. End of story.

[darkstar3]

125. And which part of the Communist Manifesto

states 'there is no god'?

I can quote Bible versus when people ask for proof, quote to me the part of the Communist Manifesto that says 'there is no god.' If you can't support the claim, don't make it.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

130. .

Marx

“Communism begins from the outset with atheism"

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm

Lenin

“These masses should be supplied with the most varied atheist propaganda material, they should be made familiar with facts from the most diverse spheres of life, they should be approached in every possible way,”

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/mar/12.htm

"A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/may/13.htm

Soviet Academy of Pedagogical Sciences

“The Soviet school, as an instrument for the Communist education of the rising generation, can, as a matter of principle, take up no other attitude towards religion than one of irreconcilable opposition; for Communist education has as its philosophical basis Marxism, and Marxism is irreconcilably hostile to religion”

http://www.topix.net/forum/topstories/T7FI8BPIBPCE4HSUD

Alexander Solzhenitsyn

“The world has never before known a godlessness as organized, militarized and tenaciously malevolent as that preached by Marxism. Within the philosophical system of Marx and Lenin and at the heart of their psychology, hatred of God is the principle driving force, more fundamental than all their political and economic pretensions.”

[twitomy]

132. Dont you hate intellectual laziness?

or when people who obviously didnt do too well in history act as if they are hsitorians? I mean, its amazing the guy doesnt realize Communism is the enemy of religion, and then the gall of demanding you spoon feed it to him when the info is so readily available.

[darkstar3]

134. Spoonfeed?

You project too much, sir, with your claims of intellectual laziness.

Again, when YOU make a claim (a tenant of communism is that 'there is no god') then YOU must back it up. It is NOT my responsibility to verify whatever wild claims might take your fancy.

Why is this so hard to understand?

[darkstar3]

135. Thank you for the proof

I've seen those before, but none of them are actually from the Communist Manifesto. Rather, they are from other, sometimes 'missing' manuscripts and writings cobbled together over time.

I'm won't discount them, though, simply because they're not in the book we were specifically talking about.

My point: I was TRYING to get twitomy to back up his own claim. I know all about Marx's leanings on atheism, but I don't accept 'common knowledge' or blind sources as arguments.

Now that we've cleared up the fact that to be a true Communist, one must first be an atheist, I'd like to address the original argument.

'Stalin and Mao killed about that many in the name of atheism/secular humanism...'

Communism =/= atheism. It's not a two-way relationship. All 'true' Communists may be atheists, but not all atheists (by far) are Communists.

To boil it down: Communists killed people in order to crush dissent from their communist regime. How does that equate to killing 'in the name of atheism/secular humanism'?

[twitomy]

136. Easy.

Communism uses atheism as its bedrock. In the name of Communism, people were murdered. So by extension, people were killed for the sake of atheism.

Now I would think your first reaction is "But Atheism doesnt call on people to murder" and your right, it doesnt. But neither does true Christianity. Its their adherents with power, those who preach atheism and christianity, who misuse it for their own evil ends. That misuse does not condemn the Christian religion nor atheism any more than a hammer used to bludgeon to death condemns hammers (or firearms for that matter).

Of course I cant say this for all religions. There are some, mostly pagan, who actually DO call for
the salughter of innocents, such as the Mayan, etc...In that case I could agree with condmening that
religion. But to write off all religion as inherently evil is well, dumb. I would submit to you if
every followed Jesus's teaching we would have world peace.

[darkstar3]

137. Sorry, wrong.

'So by extension, people were killed for the sake of atheism.'

The extension doesn't work. They were killed in the name of Communism, and NOT atheism (see below). And before you say that about faith, religion, or whatever, remember a few things...

----------------------------------
Killing in the name of _________.

Atheism: "Become an atheist, or die."
Communism: "Toe the party line, or die."
Christianity: "Believe in Jesus, or die."
Islam: "Pray to Allah, and his prophet Muhammad, or die."

3 of these things have happened, do happen, and will happen again. When has item number 1 happened? Please cite examples.
-----------------------------------
When the Muslims marched on Constantinople, they brought with them the sign of their faith, and placed The Crescent on the highest points of the city.
When the Christians marched on the Muslims in the Crusades, they carried with them the sign of The Cross, and raised it high over the battlefield as they charged their foes.
When the Jews fire missiles into Gaza and Palestinian settlements, The Star of David is painted on their aircraft AND their missiles.

Under what sign do the atheists conquer? Under what mantra do they march? Please cite examples.
-----------------------------------
'But neither does true Christianity'
Define 'true' Christianity. Last I checked, a Christian was someone who believed in Jesus...his existence, divinity, saving grace, and intercessory powers. Are you saying that more is required to be a 'true' Christian? If so, what is required, and where did you get the rules?

On edit: I'm OP'ing this, because more people than just you and Jeff need a chance to respond.

[twitomy]

138. And what is the "party line"?

answer=atheism

"When the Christians marched on the Muslims in the Crusades, they carried with them the sign of The Cross, and raised it high over the battlefield as they charged their foes."

Yep, an abuse of religious authority. Doesnt mean religion is "wrong". Look at Christianity now: How
many denominations are calling for conquering and killing in the name of God? None,zip,nada. Thats becasue this Christinaity has matured and is now practiced by and large the way it was intened by its founder.

[darkstar3]

139. You REALLY don't understand Communism if that's what you think. n/t

[twitomy]

140. Marx: "Communism begins from the outset with atheism" NT

[darkstar3]

141. And we're back to that.

I have already explained the flaw in your logic, and yet you continue to go back to it.

I'm done here. You have constantly shown in this subthread that you are interested only in insulting/degrading/demeaning atheism, even if your statements are proven illogical and incorrect. Have fun with your delusions alone, because I am sick of repeating myself.

[twitomy]

147. Right back at you...

You fail to realize that atheism is part and parcel of communism, therefore what was done in the name of communsim was also done in the name of atheism. Im sick of repeating myself as well.

[darkstar3]

149. Again,

'You're a towel!'
You crack me up, you really do...

[Odin2005]

23. Good. The faster people quit believing in fairy tales the better.

[nyc 4 Biden]

24. Guess the GOP doesn't have a monopoly on bigotry.

Join in now...

"Yeah, all religious liberals are scum!!1!! They're not tolerant like us are!!1!"

[pattmarty]

62. Get fucking real, will ya????????????? You are doing the same................

.............god damn thing. Accusing people that don't agree WITH YOU of being bigoted. I've said it in another post and I'll repeat here:


RELIGION SHOULD BE LIKE SEX, PRIVATE. KEEP IT TO YOURSELF AND I DO NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH WHATEVER YOU BELIEVE IN.

[Nihil]

99. Calm down.

> RELIGION SHOULD BE LIKE SEX, PRIVATE. KEEP IT TO YOURSELF AND I DO
> NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH WHATEVER YOU BELIEVE IN.

So why trouble yourself to come to a forum named "Religion/Theology"
for the apparent purpose to repeatedly post SHOUTS about other people's
religious and/or theological opinions?

:shrug:

Either discuss things sensibly or keep away from a forum that is explicitly
something that you have stated that you have a problem with - discussing
religion.

:think:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

26. Irony Alert!

Chumped by the Chimp.

[Bragi]

29. How very sad. : ) /nt

[anachro1]

32. Scare them just right

and most religious fanatics would eat aborted babies just to avoid joining their savior.

[NoodleyAppendage]

34. Good. It's high time to rid society of the blood-sucking perpetuators of hate and ignorance. n/t

J

[Lydia Leftcoast]

37. Sounds like what Republicans say about Democrats

"It's time to rid society of those blood-sucking perpetrators of immorality and high taxes."

[badgerpup]

35. ...and the funny part...

...that's not funny 'ha-ha' but funny as in 'supremely ironic' is that disaster, poverty, famine, plague, and rotten things in general were what GAVE Christianity such a huge following to start with.
"Hey sure, life sucks now...but if you believe in THIS faith, after you die, things will be absolutely WONDERFUL for you."

It wasn't all the Spanish Inquisition.

[charlie]

40. I'll bet the teeming millions

who bought The Secret and all its fine accessories aren't feeling too hot either. They visualized the good life and manifested destitution. Imagine that.

Megachurchers are probably bereft too, wondering where their cut of the Magic Biblical Prosperity went. They're just sectarian versions of the same fools.

Maybe... just maybe, some of them will wise up and find a nice regular congregation where they can get some churchin' and their donations will go to unwed mothers, instead of laser light shows. Then when they need someone to lean on, they'll get blankets and a bag of groceries, instead of half off at the gift shop.

[stopbush]

59. It's a sorry state of affairs when people depend on the carrots and sticks of religion

to inspire them to charitable acts.

Yes, religions provide services to the needy. But at their core, they represent just another layer of middle men taking a cut that need not be taken. Religions run on the largesse of their followers. Those donations could just as easily move over to the public sector to fund non-denominational services. What would be missing would be the opportunity to proselytize and the financial cut necessary to keep religions in business. It's a given that believers fund church-based charities because they offer a chance to spread the word about their religion. Otherwise, those same funds from the same people would be directed to a non-denominational charity doing the exact same work.

Would religious types not give if their church wasn't involved? Sadly, many wouldn't. What does that say about their connection to humanity as a whole? What does that say about their take on what charity is all about?

If the churches really want to make a difference, they would lead the movement to convert all religious charities to non-religious charities. They would sell all of their property and holdings and direct the profits made be used to fund the same. In short, they would liquidate their businesses to support charities who provide services without a hint of proselytizing religious beliefs.

If they're unwilling to do that, then all the chatter about "religious charities do a lot of good work without banging people over the head with their religion" is nothing more than a transparent cover for the religious proselytizing that inevitably happens in religion-based charities.

[rrneck]

77. +1 nt

[RagAss]

144. Fuck em